Madras High Court
Mr.Sahil Kansaria vs M/S.Ponneri Steel Industries on 28 October, 2022
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
and
A.No.3015 of 2022
in
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Mr.Sahil Kansaria
Proprietor of
M/s.S.S.Enterprises
No.130/4, Manali Express Road,
Ernavoor, Manali
Chennai-600 057. .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s.Ponneri Steel Industries
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Anand Garg
No.2, Vaidhyanathan Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.
2. Mrs.Lalitha Devi
W/o. Late Mr.Manmohan Agarwal
3. Mr.Hemanth Agarwal
S/o. Late Mr.Manmohan Agarwal
4. Mr.Anand Garg
Page Nos.1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
No.14/12, 2nd Floor
Agasthiyar Nagar, Kilpauk
Chennai-600 010. .. Defendants
A.No.3015 of 2022 :
Mrs.Shoba Agarwal
W/o.Mr.Pankaj Agarwal
No.14/12, 3rd Floor
Agasthiyar Nagar, Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010. ... Applicant / 3rd party
.Vs.
1. Mr.Sahil Kansaria
Proprietor of
M/s.S.S.Enterprises
No.130/4, Manali Express Road,
Ernavoor, Manali
Chennai-600 057.
2. M/s.Ponneri Steel Industries
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Anand Garg
No.2, Vaidhyanathan Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.
3. Mrs.Lalitha Devi
W/o. Late Mr.Manmohan Agarwal
4. Mr.Hemanth Agarwal
S/o. Late Mr.Manmohan Agarwal
5. Mr.Anand Garg
No.14/12, 2nd Floor
Agasthiyar Nagar, Kilpauk
Chennai-600 010. ... Respondents 2 to 5 / defendants
Page Nos.2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV of Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying
(a) Directing the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of
Rs.1,39,45,720.98 (Rupees One Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Five
Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty and Paise Ninety Eight Only)
together with interest on Rs.1,38,45,720.98 (Rupees One Crore Thirty
Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty and Paise
Ninety Eight Only) @ 18% p.a from this date till the date of realization,
the cause being commercial;
(b) Directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs
of the suit;
A.No.3015 of 2022 has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of
O.S.Rules read with Order XXXVIII Rule 10 of CPC praying to raise the
order of attachment dated 26.10.2021 in Application No.3570 of 2021
and reflected as Document No.25/2021 dated 20.11.2021 in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Periamet.
C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021:
For Plaintiff : Mr.A.R.Karunakaran
For Defendants : Ms.M.Meenatchi
representing Mr.R.John Sathyan
A.No.3015 of 2022 :
For Applicant : Mr.A.Praveen Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Karunakaran for R1
Ms.M.Meenatchi
representing Mr.R.John Sathyan
for R2 to R5
*****
Page Nos.3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Captioned suit and captioned application have been listed under
the cause list caption 'FOR RECORDING MEMO OF COMPROMISE'.
2. This judgment / decree and order will dispose of the captioned
suit and application.
3. In this judgment, parties shall be referred to by their respective
ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4. Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, learned counsel on record for sole
plaintiff, Ms.Meenatchi, learned counsel from Chamber of Mr.R.John
Sathyan counsel on record for defendants 1 and 4 and Mr.A.Praveen
Kumar, learned counsel for Ms.Shoba Agarwal {(wife of Mr.Pankaj
Agarwal) who is a third party to the main suit and who has filed
captioned application namely, A.No.3015 of 2022} are before this
Commercial Division.
Page Nos.4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
5. Defendants 2 and 3 have entered appearance through Mr.Swami
Subramanian and Ms.Meenatchi, learned counsel submits that she is
representing the counsel on record for defendants 2 and 3 also.
6. This judgment / decree has to be read in conjunction with and in
continuation of earlier proceedings made by Hon'ble predecessor Judge in
the previous listing on 27.07.2022 and the same reads as follows:
'A third party has filed an application to raise the
attachment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to
file a counter thereto. Meanwhile, the two contesting parties
submit that there is a reasonable prospect of an amicable
resolution of the dispute. Therefore, they request that the
matter be placed before the Mediation Centre annexed to
this Court.
2. Acceding to the request, the matter is placed before
the Mediation Centre annexed to this Court. Both parties
agree to be present before the Mediation Centre on
01.08.2022. Since the date of hearing has been fixed with the
consent of parties, a separate notice from the Mediation
Centre in this regard is not necessary.
3. Let the matter appear before this Court upon
receipt of the report of Mediation Centre.'
7. The above proceedings speak for itself. On being referred to
'Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre under the aegis of this
Court' [hereinafter 'TNMCC' for the sake of brevity], TNMCC has
conducted mediation and sent a mediation report dated 17.10.2022 under
cover of letter dated 20.10.2022 and a scanned reproduction of the same
Page Nos.5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
is as follows:
Page Nos.6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
8. All the aforementioned three counsel request for a decree in
terms of 'memo of compromise dated 17.10.2022' [hereinafter 'said MOC'
for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] annexed to the
aforementioned mediation report.
9. Before this Commercial Division accedes to aforementioned
request for the purpose of clarity, specificity and elimination of possible
anomalies, it is made clear that there is an error in the Judge's summons
qua captioned application namely, A.No.3015 of 2022. This Commercial
Division has verified the vakalatnama and all the three aforementioned
counsel before this Commercial Division confirm that the captioned
application has been taken out by Mr.APraveen Kumar on behalf of
Ms.Shoba Agarwal (wife of Mr.Pankaj Agarwal) whereas the Judge's
summons says that it has been taken out by Mr.T.Sivaraman and two
others and that affidavit of one Dharmender B. Singh is used in support
of the same. In the Judge's summons in prayer limb (b) there is an
overwriting. A scanned reproduction of this Judge's summon is as
follows:
Page Nos.8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
10. Therefore, it is made clear that the date of attachment (that is
now being lifted vide clause 5 of said MOC) is 26.10.2021.
11. A scanned reproduction of said MOC (together with docket)
dated 17.10.2022 alluded to supra is as follows:
Page Nos.9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
12. All the aforementioned learned counsel before this Commercial
Division, adverting to said MOC submit that the same was signed in the
presence of each other and on that basis, seek dispensing with the
presence of parties for recording memo of compromise. Considering the
nature of the matter and the fact that it has been recorded before
TNMCC, this request is acceded to.
13. Clause 7 of said MOC reads as follows:
'7. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order of refund of the Court fee paid by the plaintiff.'
14. In the light of Section 69-A of 'The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955)' [hereinafter
'TN Court Fees Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity], this clause
becomes a non-starter.
15. Learned counsel on record for plaintiff Mr.A.R.Karunakaran,
very fairly submits that clause 7 of said MOC can be treated as deleted.
This submission made on instructions is recorded.
M.SUNDAR, J.
Page Nos.17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
mk
16. Captioned application ordered in terms of clause 5 of said
MOC. Captioned suit decreed in terms of said MOC (except clause 7
which now stands deleted). Said MOC shall form part of judgment and
decree. Captioned main suit and captioned application disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mk
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
and
A.No.3015 of 2022
in
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.70 of 2021
Page Nos.18/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
